Skip to main content

View Post [edit]

Poster: Shug909 Date: Aug 30, 2018 1:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

yeah it really just comes down to people like what they like and dislike what they dislike.

Trying to provide "proof" or evidence that some art is good or bad is to presume that there is a single agreed upon set of criteria for what good and bad art is when its really about individual opinion shaped by culturally learned aesthetics. Talking about aesthetics as if it were a matter of fact is an unproductive way to approach the question, in my opinion.

People's opinion whether music is good or bad is also shaped by what they learn as a member of a culture. Eastern European folk music, for example, has an entirely different perspective on what notes together make a harmonious relationship than Western music does. What is perceived as harmonious in that culture is typically perceived as dissonant to Western ears.

Most Westerners would at least know what you are talking about if you played a Donna Jean wail in Playin' In the Band from '73 and said "this is bad singing" But some individuals don't hear it that way, as we all know from reading this message board. So yeah, you could say The Everly Brothers had good harmony singing and the Grateful Dead had bad harmony singing but that is assuming that we are judging good and bad from a Western perspective. You could strengthen that claim by saying that the Dead and Donna Jean were likely trying to sound harmonious according to Western cultural norms but simply failing to do so but still there is always gonna be some people who have a different experience of that music and who might even find it to be pleasing.

I don't like Dead and Co because the tempos are too slow, I think they playing is imprecise and unarticulate, they don't seem to be synchronized and I just don't hear or feel much passion or intensity in it. I don't like JRAD because even though they can be very precise and locked in and intense, they do shit the Dead never did and that is not what I want from a Dead cover band. I want them to sound just like the Dead and that is why I like DSO, especially when they do a 70s show: they do it in a pleasing way to my ears and it gives me a chance to experience the music live as close as its ever gonna get to being there in person in the 70s which I was too young to have had the chance to do. I don't dig it at all when they do their own original setlist and mix in Jerry Band songs that the Dead never played because that breaks the illusion that I'm looking for to go back in time and experience an actual Dead show that actually happened. Many disagree with me and that is fine, but it doesn't make me or them right or wrong and it doesn't make one good and the other bad.



Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Aug 30, 2018 2:14pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

I wan't asking people to provide proof of anything,I'm simply trying to understand what sounds good to the folks who like the music.So I thought they might provide an example with a little insight into why they liked it.Not being a fuckin' moron I don't think I need to be told that peoples opinion vary when it comes to the arts or that if someone's opinion is different than mine they are not wrong.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Shug909 Date: Aug 30, 2018 3:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

but you repeatedly talk about what "is" or what "is not" true when you are stating your opinions which suggests that you think people who disagree with you are wrong. I find that to be arrogant and condescending because it suggests that you think your opinion is more valid that those of others who disagree.

A little more care in choice of words, even if it takes more effort, could easily avoid this impression if that is not how you really mean to come across.

Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Aug 30, 2018 3:59pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

Of course,stating what "is or isn't" is part of a back and forth and expressing your opinion.I don't feel I treat anyone's response without respect except in the rare case where no respect is given.99 % of the time if there is a difference in opinion I am the first to say let's agree to disagree.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Shug909 Date: Aug 31, 2018 8:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

First off, like many people here, I appreciate and respect your extensive and detailed knowledge about Grateful Dead music that clearly comes from thousands of hour of attentive listening and note-taking, as I have said many times to you on this message board.

I’ve also been on the receiving end of you telling me that what I hear in the music is flat out wrong and I can tell you that that does not feel very good and I certainly don’t consider that to be you treating me with respect.

You say that you are respectful of other people’s differing opinions but I don’t think you really are. Here’s one way of looking at how you behave on this message board:

You start a topic and open up a discussion on it claiming that you are sincerely curious about hearing other people’s differing opinions on that topic, but you state your opinions so aggressively and with declarative statements that it comes across far more as a challenge to debate you. Then some people offer up what you have asked them for and then you criticize them for both the manner in which they state their opinions as well as criticizing and trying to invalidate the content of their opinions. And then when people understandably react negatively to this treatment from you, your response take a turn towards confrontational hostility, name calling and placing blame on others. I don’t see a lot of respect for others opinions in your aggressive confrontational approach. So saying you respectfully agree to disagree isn’t really true when its preceeded by you trying to invalidate people’s opinions.

Calling me too sensitive is just a convenient way for you to avoid taking responsibility for the words you choose and the manner in which you deliver them. It also sends a pretty clear message that being considerate of other human beings’ feelings is a nuisance to you, one you would clearly rather not be burdened with. I don’t know if you really feel this way or not, but it is the message you send, in case that matters to you.

Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Aug 31, 2018 9:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

I would appreciate you putting forth a case where I stated what you were hearing in the music was flat out wrong.If you are going to make such a statement you should back it up.Also feel free to find all these instances where all the name calling and blame placing takes place.Because saying these things with no context is unreasonable.

In this thread alone I disagreed with wig3 and simply said we must like different things.I called him no names nor told him he was wrong.With fenario80 I gave my take on his link where I somewhat disagreed with him.I simply stated my opinion,not aggressively or inconsiderate of his opinion but simply my opinion.I was called an idiot in this thread and did not respond with any name calling.I feel I go out of my to answer anyone who responds to a thread I start and comment on their comment because they took some of their valuable time to interact with me.For the most part I try to be positive in my response.I don't seem to have many problems with people here and have had countless back and forth's with a lot of people.

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Aug 30, 2018 3:21pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

Ooooh, I get to pull out my father's favorite phrase. Again.

Thanks dad.

Definition of à chacun son goût:

Everyone to his taste - to each his own

Reply [edit]

Poster: jerlouvis Date: Aug 30, 2018 3:43pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

Exactly how I feel DH,but if you express an unpopular or contrary opinion these days without an IMHO or some sort of backpedal you're treated as unaccepting or judgmental to a point of needing an explanation of how things work.It's mind blowing to be treated like a fuckin' idiot because people are so sensitive.

This post was modified by jerlouvis on 2018-08-30 22:43:17

Reply [edit]

Poster: Diamondhead Date: Aug 30, 2018 4:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

Maybe we all need to sign a release before we can post that confirms that everything is imho. Except maybe the songs and the dates.

Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 30, 2018 2:04pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

Hey Shug, I take your point, but note that the DEAD knew (they said so many times) that their vocals were "good" on albums, and "bad" when live...period.

Thus, as I've so often said, we (OK, at least the DEAD did) agreed that "good singing" was something they aspired to, and they often failed (again, by their own admissions) when live...thus, there is no real judgment here (or at least "we" are all using same Western Cultural standards; I got ya).

American Beauty provides those great vocals; most live performances did not...

Reply [edit]

Poster: Shug909 Date: Aug 30, 2018 2:15pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

I hear ya, Tell, and yeah I agree there were better vocals on the Dead's studio albums than live, but there are still plenty of spots that some would say are not that great, like the studio version of Attics. That blend, to my ears, is not nearly as harmonious, as Crosby Stills and Nash typically were in the studio and nowhere near as good as The Everlys or the Louvin Brothers or The Byrds were in the studio. One's mans' "good" is another man's "fair", I guess. I know the Dead tried to sing "good" but that to me was really never their strength for whatever reasons. But they would, to my ears, fucking NAIL it every once in awhile, like Jerry's high harmonies on many 80s versions of Promised Land or Bobby and Donna on '77 Looks Like Rains

Reply [edit]

Poster: HankAndLeeStamper Date: Aug 31, 2018 7:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

What's sort of amusing to me about all of this, is that I found what Dead Co were truly missing was the vocals. I NEVER in a million years would have said "the irreplaceable part of the dead will be garcia's vocals" but it's true. There is a post later on about seeing ratdog in a club v dead/co in a stadium/arena. spot on. i enjoyed that stuff more. of course bobby was like 50-55 in those days, not the 70ish that he is now.
In terms of when it all "died out" I only saw the band from the first post-coma show onward and i like to think i saw pretty goddam good music over those 7 years or so. I don't just like to think it, actually, i DID see/hear plenty of it. Having this archive years later, I understand what i saw wasn't Veneta or the Carousel or anything close. But it was better than anything else i saw out there as an option in those days. Maybe that's what young people think about DeadCo? I disagree (unlike the dead in the 80s, i think there are a lot better options for music than deadco here in the 21st century teens), but i'm 50something not 20something.

Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 31, 2018 3:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

I've always thought this aspect is underappreciated (Jerry's vocals were critical)...it's why I drone on about the decline, because by the late 70s, most nights live, he was not what he once was...blah, blah, blah. Plus, the "magic" leaves the Hunter/Garcia team on lyrics/tunes.

Hmm, not a fan of the Talking Heads or the Police, eh? I took them and the Blasters over 80s DEAD any day...

This post was modified by William Tell on 2018-08-31 22:09:36

Reply [edit]

Poster: HankAndLeeStamper Date: Aug 31, 2018 4:40pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

There was some great stuff in the 80s, it's true. I did love the Police and Talking Heads (and U2), but didn't get hip to the Blasters til I was older (still in high school til '84, police and heads were popular at that age, but not blasters). And I love Springsteen, who was huge then and rightly so. And there was the more "college" stuff that I loved, the Replacements coming immediately to mind.
The Neville Brothers and the Radiators spoiled me young though, and my craving was always for what to see live, and in the whole of the 80s I saw the Police, U2, Springsteen and Replacements once each, and the Heads not at all. In that sense, especially once I moved west, the dead were always there, live, without a net so to speak. Though from an honest critical perspective, I think the Neville Brothers at a club holding under 1000 were probably the best live act of the 80s (that I saw at least, maybe excepting the Boss. Maybe.)
(edit: I only went to post-coma shows, and as a result i often saw "clean" Jerry, who i think sounded pretty good on vocals a lot more than he did at certain other points in his life)(second edit: also, i was usually dosed or at least shrooming, so my judgment of "hunh! can't hit the high notes Fat Man?? was perhaps not as critical as it may have been)

This post was modified by HankAndLeeStamper on 2018-08-31 23:36:07

This post was modified by HankAndLeeStamper on 2018-08-31 23:40:39

Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Aug 30, 2018 2:53pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Dead & Co.

Agreed...I just stopped giving them the chance to do it in the 80s, and 90s, but I take you at your word that it did happen for you (and others).

That was the beauty of the DEAD, during any era I suppose--for one of us, at a given moment, they nailed it.